Women’s Refugee CommissionResearch. Rethink. Resolve.

August 2014

A Double-edged Sword: Livelihoods in EmergenciesGuidance and Tools for Improved Programming

The Women’s Refugee Commission works to improve the lives and protect the rights of women, children and youth displaced by conflict and crisis. We research their needs, identify solutions and advocate for programs and policies to strengthen their resilience and drive change in humanitarian practice.

Acknowledgements

This report was written by Ann Young Lee of the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC). Contributors include Sonia Rastogi and Rosemary Taing. Dale Buscher of the WRC provided key guidance. A number of individuals also provided significant input, including John Jepsen and Alexis Curtis from DAI; Jim DiFrancesca from PCI; and Ibrahim Muhammad with FAO. Additional feedback was received from WRC colleagues Joan Timoney, Elizabeth Cafferty, Josh Chaffin, Omar Robles, Kathryn Paik. Diana Quick edited and designed the report.

The WRC would like to thank staff from Action Against Hunger (ACF) and Global Communi-ties for their support in conducting the field assessments. The ACF country team and Réseau des Femmes in the Democratic Republic of Congo—in particular Laura Esposito, Marie-Josée Ruhara, José Bitagugumba Manegabe, and in the Philippines Renee Patron and Eva Marie—were instrumental in realizing project aims. The WRC would also like to thank all key informants.

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsi-bility of the Women’s Refugee Commission and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Photographs by Ann Young Lee.

© 2014 Women’s Refugee Commission

ISBN:1-58030-121-5

Women’s Refugee Commission122 East 42nd StreetNew York, NY 10168-1289212.551.3115info@wrcommission.org

womensrefugeecommission.org

Research. Rethink. Resolve.

ContentsPreface ................................................................................................................................... 1Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 2Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework ........................................................................ 3Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 4

Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 4Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 4Field Assessments ......................................................................................................... 5Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 5

Research Findings ............................................................................................................... 6Why Livelihood Programs in Emergencies Matter .................................................. 6Why Safer Livelihood Programs In Emergencies Matter ....................................... 6Intersection of Livelihoods, Protection and Gender ............................................... 7

I. The Protection and Livelihoods Link ................................................................... 8II. The Gender and Livelihoods Link ...................................................................... 9

Current Practice .............................................................................................................. 10Cash Programming ........................................................................................................ 10Market Interventions ....................................................................................................... 11

Cohort Livelihood and Risk Analysis: CLARA ............................................................... 12Field Findings ........................................................................................................................ 13

Quick-onset Emergency – Philippines Findings ...................................................... 13Protracted Emergency – Democratic Republic of Congo Findings ................... 14

Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 16Challenges ....................................................................................................................... 16Recommendations – Leadership and Organizational Structure .......................... 16Recommendations – Operational Opportunities .................................................... 18

Notes ...................................................................................................................................... 19Annex A: Codebook of Key Themes and Frequencies from Interviews .................. 22Annex B: Interviewee Affiliations ...................................................................................... 24Annex C: Methodology, Philippines ................................................................................. 25Annex D: Methodology, Democratic Republic of the Congo ..................................... 26Annex E: Expanding EMMA to Include Risk Analysis .................................................. 28Annex F: Expanding Oxfam’s “Working with Markets and Cash: Standard Operating Procedures and Guidance Notes” ......................................... 29Annex G: CLARA Cohort Livelihoods and Risk Analysis ........................................... 30Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 39

Women’s Refugee Commission

i

ACF Action Against Hunger

CM Community mobilization

CP Cash programming

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

FGD Focus group discussion

GBV Gender-based violence

NGO Nongovernmental organization

MSME Micro-small-medium enterprises

WRC Women’s Refugee Commission

Acronyms & Abbreviations

1

Preface

Since 2009, the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC) has researched and advocated for livelihood programs in displacement settings that consider and mitigate the risks of gender-based violence (GBV) to different individuals. One of the goals of this body of work is to generate findings, recommendations and tools that ensure livelihood programs do not uninten-tionally increase GBV risks to the crisis-affected popu-lations. The previous research conducted by the WRC identified the gaps in general practice, while providing guidance and a tool that mapped local knowledge and perceptions about risk and safety, the Safety Mapping Tool. Building on these foundations, this current report expands focus on risk analyses for women, girls, boys and men in different stages of the project cycle of emergency livelihood programs.

By presenting findings, this report presents answers to two research questions:

(1) How and when are practitioners analyzing risks

to different individuals when implementing livelihood programs in emergencies, and

(2) What are the opportunities, lessons and tools to further test on the ground and refine for application?

The primary audiences for this report are the organiza-tions and livelihood practitioners, protection officers and gender staff who respond to emergencies and support livelihood programs. Donors that fund livelihood and protection programs are a secondary audience.

The structure of this report first identifies emerging lessons, gaps and opportunities for safer liveli-hood programs in emergencies. The methodology is explained, which sets up the intersections between protection, livelihoods and gender. The report then describes initial findings related to field assessments and location. Results from the field assessment inform key findings and recommendations, as well as next steps for the second phase of the research. The follow-on phase of the research will focus on testing the recommendations and tools developed based on this report.

Fabric seller, market, Bukavu, DRC.

2

Executive Summary

During emergencies, women, girls, boys and men draw on their assets while navigating a complex land-scape of changing power dynamics, unequal access to resources and information, and threats of violence and displacement. Assets in emergency contexts are a double-edged sword: they can help people over-come crises but can also quickly turn into liabilities, increasing vulnerability to GBV and insecurity. Women, girls, boys and men experience these dynamics differ-ently, and their risks of violence are unique.

When effective, livelihood programs can seed longer-term recovery while saving lives.1 However, as emer-gencies are characterized by a spike in insecurity, sexual violence, exploitation and abuse, humanitarian practitioners can unintentionally contribute to increased exposure to these dangers due to poor response plan-ning; the urgency to “do something” can compromise the imperative to “do no harm.” It is therefore critical that from the very early days of an emergency, gender dynamics are understood, GBV risks are assessed and measures taken to reduce vulnerability to threats for women, girls, boys and men.

This report presents findings from a year-long research project on current practices through field assessments in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Philip-pines, a literature review and expert interviews. The report also offers a draft tool, the Cohort Livelihoods and Risk Analysis (CLARA), for further field testing and research. This draft tool seeks to include an analysis of different risks for individuals in livelihood assessments and program design.

Key Findings

• There are no incentives or disincentives in organizations and agencies to include an analysis of GBV risks for affected individuals in livelihoods programming in emergencies.

• GBV risk analysis is not institutionalized in operational activities.

• There is a lack of targeted tools designed explic-itly for capturing risks of increased exposure of GBV for women, girls, boys and men.

• There are mechanisms and activities, such as secondary data analysis, community mobiliza-tion and existing risk analysis, that all organi-zations practice, which can be expanded to include a gendered risk analysis.

Key Recommendations

• Create demand for gender- and risk-sensitive livelihoods programming. Start with policies that articulate safer livelihood programs as a priority and institutionalize them into practice.

• Influence culture. Leadership can create the incentives and disincentives for developing risk-mitigating programs. Structures that support and reinforce these incentives can assist alongside the culture shifting from “do no harm” to “doing better.”

• Work directly with affected communities to identify risks associated with participation in liveli-hood and economic recovery programs and how to best mitigate those risks.

• Deepen and expand on existing tools, guidance and practices. Target and articulate explicitly the objective of identification and reduction of risks and of GBV in particular for different population cohorts.

• Approach risk analyses as an ongoing responsi-bility. Situations change over time, and different risks must be assessed from assessment to implementa-tion, end of program and post-program. This phased approach can start with a quick initial assessment that leads to more nuanced and data collection activities.

For a full list of recommendations, see page 16.

3

Introduction

Several principles in humanitarian practice place the safety and protection of affected individuals, and the imperative to do no harm, at the center of humanitarian action and response.2 Livelihood programs in emer-gencies can enable affected individuals to respond to crises and contribute to their own recovery, but may also increase vulnerabilities and possible exposure to threats and violence. When humanitarian actors design, implement and evaluate livelihood programs without considering beneficiaries’ risk of harm, inter-ventions are less likely to achieve their stated objec-tives and more likely to compromise personal safety. In order to avoid exposing individuals to greater risks, this report identifies the need to standardize risk analysis across the program cycle.

To be effective, and do no harm, livelihood programs must provide adaptive solutions to unique situations that individuals face. This means understanding the socio-political, cultural and local institutional/policies that influence livelihoods (see Box 2).3 The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework provides a model to understand the different factors that influence livelihood strategies.

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework is a snapshot that shows the possible entry points that inform program design. It shows the relationship between three critical factors to livelihoods--assets, structures and norms--and drivers of vulnerability; that is, how existing and potential livelihood assets and capacities are enabled or impeded by government and business policies and

structures within a given context, and the ways in which norms such as gender, culture, institutions and laws influence or restrict access to assets; and how drivers of vulnerability impact livelihood outcomes.

This snapshot can provide guidance on where response could be most effective. After a shock, such as in a drought, activities that decrease vulnerability may be the most effective solution, such as providing support to farmers to diversify their livelihood activities.

Humanitarian actors use secondary data, assessments, community mobilization and other means to assess the factors above, that is, the needs, vulnerabilities and capacities of a population, and changes in the economic environment due to crises. However, livelihood interven-tions, when considering the positive impacts on the affected communities, must also consider risks to indi-viduals before, during and after the program in order to mitigate potential harm to participants.

Livelihoods are the capabilities, assets and strategies people use

to meet basic needs and—in crises—to survive.

COMMON LIVELIHOODS INTERVENTIONS & STRATEGIES IN EMERGENCIES

• Cash programming

o Unconditional/conditional cash grants

o Cash for work

• Asset restoration (livestock, tools, equipment)

• Agrarian interventions

• Training and placement programs

• Market interventions

• Enterprise development

• Village Savings and Loans Associations

• Microfinance

4

Methodology

This report drew on: (1) a literature scan, (2) key infor-mant interviews and (3) field assessments, inclusive of focus group discussions with affected populations.

Literature Review

The research reviewed literature to identify best prac-tices, field guidelines and operational manuals. The WRC reviewed documents related to the following key concepts:

• Livelihoods in emergencies

• Livelihoods in conflict situations

• Livelihoods and protection

• Gender-based violence and economic strengthening

• Cash programming

• Market-based interventions

• Vocational training programming

• Gender in emergencies

• Livelihoods and protection in the Philippines and DRC

• Gender in DRC and in the Philippines

Interviews

Documents reviewed from the literature review were coded by key themes (gender, livelihoods or protec-tion) and type (guide, tool, research document). The literature scan was supplemented by semi-structured expert interviews with humanitarian practitioners, donors and policy makers. Each interview was coded for key themes and the frequency of interviews that focused on such themes (see Annex A, page 22) along with a list of organizations consulted in this report (see Annex B, page 24).

SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS FRAMEWORK

UK Department for International Development, The Sustainable Livelihoods Distance Learning Guide, DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, April 1999.

5

Field Assessments

Two weeks after Typhoon Haiyan passed through the Philippines, the WRC and Global Communities jointly conducted a rapid assessment with a gender lens to identify and analyze the livelihoods needs in the area, collecting data in the most affected areas in Central and Eastern Visayas regions.

The team used a mixed-method approach to data collection, including secondary data, direct observa-tion and key informant interviews with 19 women and 23 men, including representatives of the affected population, business owners, local government and community leaders. A more detailed outline of the methodology is included in Annex C (see page 25).

In partnership with Action Against Hunger (ACF), the WRC conducted a second assessment in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where chronic low-intensity conflict has left the displaced populations with few options for livelihoods and escalating levels of malnutrition. The chronic conflict has led to food insecurity, as it disrupts agriculture and other liveli-hood activities, further fueling malnutrition. The WRC accompanied ACF staff to review its current field staff’s knowledge, attitudes and program practices related to gender, and to conduct livelihood assessments. This field assessment aimed to maximize beneficiaries’ safety and to mitigate the risks that women and men face while pursuing their livelihood activities.

The methodology in the DRC was based on meet-ings with international organizations and focus group discussions with 200 men and 200 women between the ages of 25 and 40 from ACF’s programs. Interviews with senior ACF field staff and a half-day workshop with the field staff provided a baseline understanding of their livelihood programs and opportunities for iden-tifying risks. A more detailed explanation of the FGD methodology is in Annex D (see page 26).

Limitations

This document is the first step in a multi-phased research project. The report does not cover gender mainstreaming on a global level, but focuses specifi-

cally on livelihoods in emergencies. Given the early current trends in livelihoods programming in emergen-cies, the research reviews evidence from cash and market-based programming, the two most common economic interventions in current emergencies.

During the first phase of the research WRC conducted two assessments, one in a quick-onset disaster (Phil-ippines) and one in a protracted emergency context (DRC). Generalizations are made based on these two assessments. Further field testing and refinement of the recommendations and tool will continue in the second phase of the research.

Despite the total devastation of the local market in Gui-uan, Philippines, within two weeks of the category 5 super Typhoon Haiyan, market vendors were selling what was saved or salvaged.

6

Research Findings

Why Livelihood Programs in Emergencies Matter

Crisis-affected people do not wait for the delivery of humanitarian assistance in the wake of an emergency. Soon after conflicts and disasters, markets begin to function, and people rely on their assets to rebuild their livelihoods.4 Every day, the affected population depletes their assets, making them more vulnerable to threats and weakening their capacity to bounce back from the crisis. Investing in livelihood programs imme-diately after an emergency enables the affected popu-lation to meet basic needs in the immediate term, such as through cash programming to provide for basic food and access to health and education services. The earlier a livelihoods program can stem the depletion of critical assets and savings, the more resilient the crisis-affected population can be, shortening recovery time and potentially being more cost effective.5

Why Safer Livelihood Programs in Emergencies Matter

“If we want to have a small business selling drinks, our husbands will come and throw everything on the floor, and us women will have nothing, as we are nothing in front of our husbands.”

Female discussant in a group discussion in Kahinda, DRC.

Despite good intentions, external assistance through the introduction of resources can disrupt fragile relationships within communities as well as attract internal and external threats, thereby shifting assets into liabilities.6 Even in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, the unequal power dynamic between humanitarian actor and recipient can serve as a trigger in this shift.7 For example, livestock pre-crisis is an asset for a household. Post-crisis and displacement, livestock can become a target for theft and/or attack; or the livestock can draw on the scarce resources at the expense of other household members. As in

some contexts women and girls are least prioritized, they often bear the brunt of shortages and negative coping mechanisms.8 When assessing livelihoods, such threats are not immediately visible or obvious and need to be identified through risk analysis that includes gender dynamics.

Livelihood programs that seek to decrease economic vulnerability and increase wealth may do so at the expense of the security for different types of indi-viduals if pre-existing conditions and potential risks are not considered.9 A double-edged sword, bringing resources into an affected population can become either assets or liabilities, with the power to increase resilience and self-sufficiency, or to expose partici-pants to new threats and violence. (See table, page 7.)

Livelihood programs can also reinforce existing drivers that increase risks for GBV. Because women and girls have comparatively less access or control of assets and limited decision-making power, they are particularly vulnerable to GBV, insecurity and poverty, while being less capable of withstanding subsequent shocks.15 These risks can be accidentally increased through livelihood programs if gender and GBV risk factors are not identified.16

Livelihoods programming can inadvertently:

• Reinforce traditional roles of women, even if targeting a percentage of female participants

• Add burdens by increasing workloads

• Fuel conflict and violence within the household or community by changing gender norms and/or shifting balance of control over asset between men and women, or between generations

• Introduce women to new activities or places that heighten their risk of experiencing violence

• Attract attacks by outside groups due to covetable assets

• Exclude women as participants and limit options for women to unsafe livelihood strategies (collecting firewood, transactional sex, selling assets)

7

• Reduce their access to food, education, due to diverted resources needed to maintain assets such as livestock

Intersection of Livelihoods, Protection and Gender

Several factors link livelihoods with protection and gender. First is the humanitarian standard of practice upholding protection of affected individuals as central to any response. Beyond principles, gender dictates

the norms, vulnerabilities and types of livelihood strate-gies of different people that impact individual safety. Given this relationship, the diagram below is divided into sections further discussed in the report below. Section I in the diagram corresponds with Section I below, which outlines the link between protection and livelihoods; Section II corresponds with Section II below, which discusses the link between gender and livelihoods. At the central convergence point of all three is the analysis of risks of GBV to livelihood program participants.

Type of Example of Example of how an asset capital asset can turn into a liability Possible risk management strategies

8

I. The Protection and Livelihoods Link

The protection imperative requires doing no harm, and to protect the most vulnerable from abuses.18 Protection work in humanitarian assistance is based on assessing and managing risks by reducing vulnerabilities or threats to safety and to ensure equity and protection from harm caused by emergencies. Protection looks at the external threats to safety and drivers of vulnerability, including economic assets, restricted mobility and access, which also impact the way people can earn a living.19

After a shock, as options are restricted and institutional and social systems broken, livelihood choices are often limited to ones that have a negative effect on well-being, such as selling assets, eating less, pulling children out of school, venturing into insecure areas and employing new

livelihood strategies that put people at risk of violence.20 When programs provide alternatives to dangerous liveli-hood strategies, they may decrease the overall protection risks for the affected groups.21 On the flip side, livelihood programs may increase protection risks to the affected population. Assets can quickly turn into liabilities, which increase vulnerabilities if risks are not identified and managed. Increased mobility, accessing markets and new roles and responsibilities can lead to increased risks for those undertaking new or different livelihood activities.

II. The Gender and Livelihoods Link

Women and girls, boys and men respond to shocks by drawing down on their assets (human, natural, financial, social and physical) and employing diverse livelihoods

II. Dictates access, control, and decisions related to livelihoods

I. Increases or decreases vulnerability or threats

* Risks of GBV different for different cohorts

9

strategies to meet their basic and urgent needs.22 How individuals employ their assets as livelihood strategies is a decision-making process based on access, control, options and the system of institutions and processes they work in (see Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, page 4).23,24 Access, control and options, however, are dictated by gender roles and norms. These factors are also drivers that cause poverty, economic inequality and an environment that can be conducive to or perpetuate GBV.25 Even before emergencies occur, women and girls are often at a disadvantage in pursuing dignified livelihoods, due to the following factors:

• Less access to or control of assets (land, educa-tion, social networks, information)

• Less access to services

• Mobility constraints

• More responsibilities for childcare and household management

• Limited decision-making power within households

• Fewer acceptable employment options, which tend to pay less and are of lower status26

After a shock, women and girls are more vulnerable and will often be at a greater threat of employing riskier livelihoods strategies to survive, ones that expose them to sexual exploitation, violence and abuse.27 Some factors that may underpin these disadvantages are:

• Traveling to unsafe areas for economic activity, with high risk of rape and theft

• Shifting gender roles in livelihoods that create tensions within households, leading to violence

• Limiting livelihood options and placing women in marginalized and/or exploitative jobs

• Lack of basic needs forcing women and girls to turn to transactional sex to provide for their families

• Marrying off young girls in the household to alle-viate resource pressures

As norms are disrupted by crises, men also find them-selves threatened by the changing roles and gender norms in post-crisis contexts. The loss of livelihoods greatly impacts men psychologically, often causing frustration and tensions that can lead to violence within households both by intimate partners or known community members.28 For example, a recent study on GBV and the impact of conflicts on women and men in North Kivu, DRC, by Promundo and Sonke Gender Justice found that the war and subsequent loss of live-lihoods and assets leading to poverty impacted their sense of self and “manhood.”

“When I had to leave my properties behind, I felt like they cut my head off. Now I am a man without a head to think. I am nothing anymore.”

--Man, IDP camp29

Losing their traditional roles as protectors and providers, men employ negative coping strategies that increase GBV risks to women and girls. Risks of violence become prevalent within communities and households as mechanisms to manage tensions, threats, competition and conflict are weakened or destroyed. It is fundamental to factor gender dynamics and GBV into an analysis of livelihood risks for interven-

WAYS THAT ASSETS ARE RELATED TO VULNERABILITIES IN COMPLEX EMERGENCIES

• Lack of assets (for example, poor households, farmers who lack marketing skills and pastoral-ists who have lost livestock)

• Limited diversity of assets/reliance on limited range of assets (for instance, mono-cropping of drought-susceptible cash crops and land-less wage laborers)

• Ownership (or the perceived or actual posses-sion thereof) of assets that are either valued (money, weapons, jewelry) or seen as threat-ening (identity, power, education, weapons).

Sue Lautze and Angela Raven-Roberts. “Violence and complex humanitarian emergencies: implications for livelihood

models,” Disasters Volume 30, 2006.

10

tions, including the role of men as agents of change, without whom solutions to managing GBV risks are not possible. Without such an analysis and inclusion, practitioners can in fact be reinforcing the drivers of GBV, namely economic inequality and unequal access to assets, services and the abuse of power.30

Current Practice

Based on the research conducted for this report, risk analyses related to GBV and livelihoods are primarily recommended either when (1) upholding the “do no harm” principle or (2) when considering risks related to market distortions. One example is in the Minimum Economic Recovery Standards that identify the “do no harm” principle as way to capture GBV risks in liveli-hoods and market programming (see box: Do No Harm).

In analyzing existing or increased exposure risks to GBV, however, this research found a lack of explicit and regularized tools or procedures to address and manage GBV risks in assessments or design of live-lihoods programming. Risks and vulnerabilities are at the core of protection-focused assessments, but are often not considered when conducting livelihoods program assessments. Instead, focus is generally on risks of potential market distortions. When related to GBV, risk analysis only superficially captures unin-tended consequences of livelihoods programming. Examples are discussed in the Cash Programming and Market Intervention sections below.

The WRC has been citing such gaps since it began its focus on the intersection between livelihoods and protection programming in emergencies in 2009 with Peril or Protection: The Link between Livelihoods and Gender-based Violence.31 Extensive research and field-testing over several years culminated in subsequent briefs, trainings and guidance tools, including Preventing Gender-based Violence, Building Livelihoods.32 This body of work provides guidance and tools to capture threats to women, girls, boys and men throughout the life cycle of a program from assessment to evaluation. A safety mapping exercise and tool and GBV risk profiling for a gendered market and value chain analysis are ways in which the WRC has included a gendered risk anal-

ysis within livelihoods programming. However, without the explicit operationalization of GBV risk-assessing tools in livelihoods assessments and programming, livelihood programs may trigger turning assets into liabilities post-crisis. Though most livelihoods guidance recognizes the importance of gender roles in livelihoods when analyzing the context of the emergency, a large gap exists between understanding and operationalizing these dynamics into safer livelihoods programming for women, girls, boys and men.

Cash Programming

Cash programming (CP) is widely used in emergency response.33 CP is directed at providing cash transfers or cash-like vehicles, such as vouchers, to purchase goods and/or services (e.g., food, assets and school fees). CP can be an effective social protection tool by quickly injecting cash or assets in disrupted or

DO NO HARM

Key Actions

• Conduct a risk analysis in terms of potential harms, including women’s potentially height-ened risks due to their participation in economic recovery interventions, noting how identified risks will be addressed and/or mitigated.

Key Indicators

• Programs apply a “do no harm” lens to selected market chains and enterprises to determine the wider social and environmental impacts of intervention.

• Interventions do not fuel divisions within the targeted communities and contribute to bringing people together and alleviating tensions.

Guidance Notes

• Understand power dynamics and differences between discrete groups, men and women. Assessments consider this dynamic to program in a way that reduces risks.

Seep Network, “Minimum Economic Recovery Standards,” Second Edition, November 2010.

11

damaged economies and markets, protecting affected populations from drawing down on remaining assets or resorting to riskier livelihood strategies, all while providing access to basic needs. Based on a Global Humanitarian Assistance report on cash transfer financing, funding for cash transfer programs in emer-gencies increased steadily from 2007 to 2010, from $1.8 million to $52 million.34 Flexible, cost efficient and timely, cash programming is being used in almost every new emergency and in diverse sectors, such as in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and shelter.

CP is unique in that lessons learned and guidance explicitly include assessing risks of GBV and other forms of violence to women and girls. Many of these safety features revolve around targeting participants, the different cash delivery mechanisms, and in the case of cash for work, location and time considerations that do not put women at greater risk or are conscious of women’s caretaking roles. However, several gaps exist that can greatly impact the different participants in cash programming. Cash delivery mechanisms, despite improvements, are still an area in need of further research as they pose the greatest possibility of threats of violence and increased vulnerability for participants. The ideal duration of cash programs is still not fully understood, nor are there agreed-upon benchmarks or indicators for when to reduce or discontinue the cash transfers. In the WRC’s assessment conducted in the Philippines, cash-for-work programs that continued six months after Typhoon Haiyan negatively impacted small businesses that predominantly employed women.35 Interviewees provided anecdotal examples of several different cash-for-work programs continuing for months, drawing away workers and impeding the recovery of small businesses. As a result, the businesses were unable to meet orders already affected by the typhoon, greatly limiting orders by customers. Two small businesses downsized as a result, reducing their overall workers, predominantly women, in the long run.36 Many of the coping mecha-nisms discussed by the female workers included pulling children out of school and sending young girls into urban areas to find work, thereby potentially increasing vulnerabilities to the threat of GBV.

Other elements to CP that have yet to be researched

in depth are (1) how to arrive at the correct frequency and amounts of cash payments or their equivalents to the affected community so as to not negatively impact the markets in the long run, and (2) the impact of cash programming after the program is completed if no follow-on program is planned. These gaps reflect a failure to approach cash as a potential liability that can increase protection risks to participants.

Market Interventions

Market interventions also are increasingly seen as a humanitarian response approach in emergencies. Market interventions seek to support or repair broken links in the chain of activities that constitute a given market. Market interventions can also include support to local businesses affected by crises in order to provide consumers with basic needs (foodstuff, essential non-food items and livelihood assets) while supporting the return of normal functioning economies.37 Market mapping exercises try to understand the collection of decisions by a multitude of diverse individuals. It is a systemic level unit of analysis, rather than a house-hold- or individual-level analysis and response. As a result, market intervention guidance often glazes over the impact of gender on markets and within the broader market system. By overlooking these dynamics, market analysis may be reinforcing the inequalities between different cohorts that often marginalize the most vulner-able to riskier roles in the market.

For example, a market mapping exercise may identify the chain between production and the market post crisis, such as in the supply of fish to the market. The exercise may identify the loss of boats and fishing equipment, lost equipment to transform fish into other products for the market, and broken transportation links from shore to market. Knowing the different roles that different cohorts, such as women and ethnic groups, play within the supply chain could provide a quick view of possible vulnerabilities due to gender and race. It could provide opportunities in the decision-making process to select interventions and activities that will not exclude cohorts that can be made more vulnerable from a lack of safer livelihood alternatives, and ensure equity.

12

The Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis Toolkit (EMMA) is one of the most widely used market mapping tools, supported by an online community of practice. This tool provides a relatively quick over-view of one or more vital markets, a snapshot of the major actors in markets in crises and broken linkages. However, in trying to keep an overview of the market, the EMMA fails to capture the winners and losers of the market, the losers who are often the most vulner-able. Markets are not equally accessible, nor are they level playing fields, even prior to a crisis. Echoing the research from this report, the Humanitarian Practice Network roundtable highlighted some of the question below that can be included in market analyses:38

• Who are the winners and losers in the market being studied?

• What are the intra-household decision-making processes?

• How does socioeconomic status enter into markets?

• How are gender roles played out in the supply chain?

Ways to include these critical dynamics in market anal-yses are being explored by this research project. Some recommendations to modify existing tools such as the EMMA and the Minimum Requirements for Market Anal-ysis in Emergencies and Cash Program Risk Analysis are included as Annexes E and F (pages 28 and 29).

Cohort Livelihood and Risk Analysis: CLARA

Field assessments were conducted in two contexts—a quick-onset and a protracted emergency. The response to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines provided a macro-level view of coordination through the cluster system (Protection, Food Security and Agriculture, Early Recovery), local government, leader-ship within the humanitarian team in the Philippines, and sub-working groups on GBV and livelihoods. The response in the DRC provided a field-level view with a partner organization and its local partners and beneficiaries. In both contexts, gendered livelihoods and risk analyses were conducted using diverse tools and approaches. Emerging from these experiences, coupled with the literature review and key informant interviews, is the draft Cohort Livelihoods and Risk Analysis tool (CLARA) (attached as Annex G, page 30). The CLARA looks at the different cohorts’ capaci-ties and assets, vulnerabilities, opportunities and threats to assess risks related to GBV. Some of the basic questions the CLARA seeks to answer are (1) What are the resources/assets (who you know, what you have, what you know how to do) needed to get back to dignified livelihood activities? and (2) What are the possible GBV and other risks to you or others, associated with each of these assets/resources?

The CLARA is based on the participatory ranking methodology as articulated by Columbia University,39 Oxfam’s risk analysis from “Working with Markets and Cash: Standard Operating Procedures and Guidance Notes”40 and the IASC’s “Guidelines for Integrating Gender-based Violence Interventions in Humani-tarian Action: Reducing Risk, Promoting Resilience, and Aiding Recovery.”41 An early draft of the CLARA will be tested in the next phase of this research. The CLARA focuses on the household level of analysis of risks, rather than the market level. A systemic market-based analysis is currently in development, with initial suggestions for modifying existing tools (the EMMA) in Annex E (page 28).

13

Field Findings

Quick-onset Emergency – Philippines Findings

Gaps exist between personnel who conduct assess-ments, design programming and implement inter-ventions. Teams that collect information in assessments too often are not the same as the staff who remain in the field to implement programs in emergencies. Evidence collected gets lost in implementation.

The livelihoods sub-cluster in emergencies does not have a natural place in cluster coordination and response driven by cluster leadership expertise rather than evidence. In the Philippines, livelihoods coordination took place initially under the International Labor Organization (ILO) within the Food Security and Agriculture cluster. Initial assessments, in coordination with the local government, were therefore focused on agricultural and fishing. The Government of the Philip-pines (GOP) excludes the role of women within these industries when collecting data.42 Livelihood solutions suggested by the cluster, however, focused heavily on these industries and excluded assessing micro, small and medium enterprises, in which women are major participants. The sub-cluster was eventually subsumed under a joint chair with UNDP, which chairs the Early Recovery and Livelihoods cluster, and the ILO.

Emergency responders (NGOs, UN agencies, international organizations) miss opportunities to promote safer livelihoods programming by engaging with new humanitarian response actors: the local private and civil sectors, and local ad hoc emergency responders. The existing cluster system does not leave room for coordination with new actors, such as the local private sector, community-based organizations, government or religious actors.43 In the Philippines, many civil society groups, individuals and private sector businesses responded without applying minimum standards to do no harm.

Livelihoods cannot be separate from basic needs and other sectors. Risks within livelihoods are affected

by the lack of other basic needs. Assets can become a liability and unusable without the provision of basic needs. See box below for an example.

Individuals present in key meetings drove the response rather than needs, capacities and risk analyses. The livelihoods sub-cluster was driven by the expertise of individuals attending the meetings, mostly food security and agricultural specialists. Those partici-pating in the articulation of strategic response planning phase influenced what and who was targeted for assis-tance, (mostly agricultural activities) rather than decisions being driven by an evidence-based approach informed by a gendered analysis of needs, capacities and risks. As

LIVELIHOODS AND BASIC NEEDS: A PROJECT BASED ON RISK ANALYSIS

As a result of the Cohort Livelihoods and Risk Assessment (CLARA), the implementing partner organization developed a program assisting weavers in Basey, Samar Province, following Typhoon Haiyan. Working with an established value chain that linked the weavers to an international market, the organization provided critical assets to restart beneficiaries’ weaving activities and make up for orders lost. This project was based on a cohort needs and risk assessment. By conducting mixed-sex, key informant interviews, critical risks to asset restoration were identified, which was predominantly the lack of shelter. The women and older girls worked from home. Without secure and safe shelter, the women would suffer from several threats: (1) theft and attack, and an inability to use the assets provided; and (2) inability to watch over children safely.

Given the possible increase of insecurity and because their shelters were their place of busi-ness; shelter construction and home repair were part of the risk reduction plan for the livelihoods project.

Global Communities Project Concept Paper.

14

a result, the micro-small-medium enterprises (MSMEs), where the majority of women were employed and that make up 32 percent of the Philippines’ GDP, were ignored in the first few months of the emergency.44

Information on GBV, gender, protection and liveli-hoods in the Philippines existed but did not inform programming or data collection. Despite the rich evidence available, secondary data on gender and GBV dynamics were not used to inform the first Multi-cluster Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA).45 Without gendered assessments, many of the recommenda-tions focused on activities and potential livelihood responses in male-dominated activities.

A lack of leadership in coordinating clusters failed to ensure that a gendered assessment and analyses were mainstreamed in the livelihoods working group. Leadership expressed frustration in investing in gender experts rather than more activities

on the ground.46 This led to a gender-blind MIRA (as per above) and subsequent livelihoods assessments that ignored the role of women in different industries such as in agriculture, fishing and MSMEs.

Protracted Emergency – Democratic Republic of Congo Findings

Community mobilization (CM) is an effective entry point to safer livelihoods programming. CM is a mechanism that organizations recognize as being pivotal to success on the ground. Organizations pride themselves on their CM approaches, which are gener-ally standardized throughout the countries in which they work. Field-based staff, especially local staff, are responsible for managing CM and usually include it in all programming. Livelihood programs can use their community mobilization mechanism to continu-ally identify changing risks and dynamics within their programs. Simple steps, such as focus group discus-sions or surveys of different cohorts related to risks and resources, can be included in monthly reporting and institutionalized as standard practice.

Gender and gender-based violence are superfi-cially understood. Local staff interviewed were able to repeat definitions of GBV and provide examples and situations of increased risk and threat; however, staff shared attitudes and knowledge that reinforced existing gender inequalities.

Organizational leadership and structures matter. WRC’s field assessment was undertaken when the partner organization was finalizing its gender policy. Leadership in the organization is seeking out ways in which the policy can be implemented in day-to-day field activities. Lack of operationalization of policy and guidance is one of the major barriers to safer liveli-hoods programming. However, starting with a policy and making all employees and country teams respon-sible for mainstreaming gender in its assessments is a foundational step.

Mana Ling, (on left) is the head weaver at a local producer of woven bags sold internationally. She teaches hundreds of women the tradition of dyeing grass and weaving. With her expertise, hundreds of women have been able to work at home, while taking care of their children and contribut-ing to other livelihood activities. After Typhoon Haiyan, she and her weavers are anxiously hoping to restart activities to be able to continue sending their children to school, and supplementing their household incomes. She is pictured here with her daughter (on right) in Basey, Philippines.

15

COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION CASE STUDY

Coded interviewee 9-13 worked in community mobilization, women’s empowerment and livelihoods over the last 14 years. Working in difficult-to-access villages and IDP camps in conflict areas of Pakistan, 9-13 has implemented diverse emergency livelihood programs from vocational training, conditional cash grants, livestock and veterinary asset restoration, to kitchen gardens. One major difficulty cited in working in these areas is gaining access to women. In one example, the female staff of 9-13’s organization were told by community members of rising tensions due to their presence. To mitigate the rising tensions, the female staff were pulled away from the area, while local female school teachers and local health workers were hired to serve as communication points within the community.

Several critical factors that 9-13 cited as necessary in safer programming for livelihoods are as follows:

• Female staff to access women

• Communication mechanism and complaints mechanism to be up to date with changing contexts and threats

• Continual sensitization and mobilization of men before initiating programs with female community members, to avoid putting women at risk

• Community mobilization as an entry point to sensitize, access and safely assess changing contexts and risks

“Some areas will be difficult to access, but not impossible. 475 female community members were trained in em-broidery and tailoring in their own communities and homes, as they identified leaving their homes would put them at risk. We talked to people and explored to see where entry can be possible… Community mobilization takes time, but it is key. For a 10-month program, better to spend the eight months on community mobilization and two months of implementation to get it right.”

Interview with 9-13 from the field, Pakistan, February 25, 2014.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND INTEGRATING GBV RISKS

One large organization, noted for its successful integration of risks related to GBV in cash programming, shared its organizational structure for implementing its gender policy.

• All departments are responsible for mainstreaming gender into programs. If a program manager in the field does not submit a disaggregated report, several different departments from the monitoring and evaluation manager to the program manager in HQ will request sex- and age-disaggregated reporting and data.

• A GBV expert is in the organization. However, gender focal points are also trained and identified from existing program staff (not necessarily gender specialists). These focal points are responsible for training all country teams on mainstreaming gender, including the provision of toolkits and guidance.

Good Practice

16

Recommendations

The recommendations below are geared toward organization and agency leadership as well as practitioners on the ground. This top-down and bottom-up approach to influencing practice is necessary to overcome the challenges and barriers between theory and practice.

Challenges

We have the means to make some of the most complex and dangerous work we do…more effective than we ever thought possible. But the prospect pushes against the traditional culture of medicine, with its central belief that in situations of high risk and complexity, what you want is a kind of expert audacity—the right stuff. Checklists and standard operating procedures feel like exactly the opposite, and that’s what rankles many people.47

— Atul Gawande, New Yorker article on checklists used in ICUs.

Tools and checklists for the delivery of humanitarian assistance exist to coordinate actions in complex environments while providing minimum standards. However, often these tools, along with guidance and data, are not being used to inform programming deci-sions or specific livelihood activities.48 The use of tools such as secondary data, checklists, guidance and assessment tools, all face barriers to operationaliza-tion. In order to effect change in practice, the basic building blocks of (1) leadership, (2) institutionaliza-tion into practice and (3) the tools/training to support the practice are needed. Based on this research, key opportunities lie in expanding existing tools to include analyses of the GBV risks population cohorts face related to livelihoods programming.

Also fundamental is approaching data collection and subsequent analysis as an ongoing responsibility of

program managers, rather than as a task relegated to emergency assessment teams on the ground. Initial quick assessments inclusive of risk analysis can provide broad strokes to identify major protec-tion issues and risks, and a broad picture of livelihood activities and markets. However, initial rapid assess-ments must be followed by more nuanced and detailed data collection that further refines response.49

Some overarching recommendations for the humani-tarian community follow:

• Create demand for gender- and risk-sensitive livelihoods programming. Start with policies that articulate safer livelihood programs as a priority and institutionalize them into practice.

• Influence culture. Leadership can create the incentives and disincentives for developing risk-mitigating programs. Structures that support and reinforce these incentives can assist alongside the culture shifting from “do no harm” to “doing better.”

• Work directly with affected communities to identify risks associated with participation in liveli-hood and economic recovery programs and how to best mitigate those risks.

• Deepen and expand on existing tools, guidance and practices. Target and articulate explicitly the objective of identification and reduction of risks and of GBV in particular for different population cohorts.

• Approach risk analyses as an ongoing respon-sibility. Situations change over time, and different risks must be assessed from assessment to imple-mentation, end of program and post-program. This phased approach can start with a quick initial assessment that leads to more nuanced and data collection activities.

Recommendations – Leadership and Organizational Structure

Influencing organizational culture and practice to uphold the centrality of protection, do no harm and

17

accountability to affected populations imperatives start from the top—leadership. The following findings and recommendations focus on a top-down approach through creating demand and influencing the culture of organizations into practice.

Create a demand for safer livelihood programs. Donors and organizations can create the demand for safer livelihood programs from the top down. Failure to create demand can lead to gender-blind analysis in emergencies. For example, in the Philippines response, the MIRA 1 was gender blind, despite high-level gender experts on the ground providing secondary data and advocating for gender-based focus group questions. Subsequent reviews with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) country team representatives showed the lack of inclu-sion of a gendered analysis, despite the wealth of knowledge and expertise.50

A positive example as a counterpoint: In the DRC, the partner organization hosting the assessment was in the process of finalizing a gender policy including toolkits and trainings. This first step served to establish a culture oriented towards gender and risk analysis, which can create the demand for action in the field.

Organizations can:

• Articulate a policy that specifically targets safer livelihoods programming based on a gendered risk analysis;

• Articulate policy into strategic planning or opera-tional procedures;

• Create incentives and disincentives to ensure risk assessments in programming on an ongoing basis;

• Create the procedures and tools supported by training to equip staff to achieve goals.

Donors can:

• Require a population cohort risk analysis in proposal guidelines;

• Require monitoring of risks and management plans of such risks.

Livelihood sub-cluster leads can:

• Provide tools and guidance on how to include a gendered risk analyses into assessments;

• Use positive competition to ensure that gendered risk analyses are used in assessments;

• Build risk analyses into existing tools and guidance such as the EMMA and cash transfer programming guidance.

Strengthen organizational structures to support gender mainstreaming and risk analysis. Strong organizational structures through focal points can support GBV and gender mainstreaming. Focal points can provide necessary carrots and sticks to ensure that safer programming is everyone’s responsibility.

Organizations and cluster leads can:

• Organize a system of accountability that integrates the responsibility of safer programming in every department from finance to management. This can serve as a failsafe to ensure that all departments are creating the demand for gendered risk analysis of activities.

Elevate “do the right thing” or “do no harm” over “do something.” In the aftermath of an emergency or crisis, there is pressure to provide activities on the ground imme-diately. Much of the literature and many interviewees cite time constraints as a reason for the lack of data collection and analyses sensitive to the different needs, risks and capacities of women and men. Emergencies create fluid situations that change rapidly. Aggravating this dynamic is the difficulty in collecting reliable and fixed information. Not all risks will be captured or identified at any one point in the project life cycle.

Organizations can:

• Use secondary data to shorten lead time to identify vulnerabilities, risks and threats to different indi-viduals;

• Accept that risks will always be present and will change over time;

18

• Identify risks throughout the program life cycle;

• Establish a formal and regularized mechanism that captures these changes and risks and that feeds into programming decisions, whether in surveys, regular reporting mechanisms or community mobi-lization and feedback and complaints mechanisms.

Livelihood sub-cluster leads can:

• Establish a central database for risk-prone countries with secondary data available for use (gender anal-ysis, decision-making processes, power dynamics related to gender and livelihoods, livelihoods anal-ysis). Ideally this will occur pre-disaster, but most likely can happen within the first week after a crisis.

• Provide tools and training to encourage capturing the risks of increasing exposure of GBV for women and girls, men and boys, in assessments. Employ positive peer pressure to encourage inclusion of risk analysis.

• Include discussion of risk assessment findings in coordination meetings to ensure data collected is shared and informs all organizations and prac-titioners.

Use the existing evidence base and tailored standing operating procedures to inform emer-gency programming. Studies and expert interviews reveal a trend towards “the right person with the right stuff” for better programming rather than all practitio-ners’ adherence to basic standing operating proce-dures or minimum actions for livelihoods programming. Such emphasis leaves actions reliant on individuals, rather than standard practices.

Organizations can:

• Shift focus from star individuals to standard minimum actions to ensure risks are being evaluated;

• Link performance evaluations to demonstrating use of tools and information that inform design and implementation for safer programming.

Recommendations – Operational Opportunities

These findings and recommendations draw on opportunities from the field perspective. A bottom-up approach, these recommendations complement the findings and recommendations that focus on a top-down leadership and organizational structure, highlighted above. These findings and recommen-dations are geared toward the field practitioner.

Expand good practices that have been institutional-ized, to include risk analysis. Activities that are insti-tutionalized, such as outreach through mobilization, are the ones that are actualized regularly in the field.

• Identify working mechanisms, such as livelihoods market assessments, conflict assessments, situ-ation analyses and community mobilization, and modify them to include a cohort livelihoods risk analysis based on secondary and primary data.

Understand the pre-existing conditions through secondary review sources, which are often over-looked and seldom used in quick-onset emergen-cies. There are preexisting conditions that the emergency has exacerbated, uncovered or highlighted. Respondents and literature often cite time constraints as a major barrier to a more contextual analysis, including gender, politics, culture and conflict. This information, however, is available for the majority of risk-prone and conflict-prone countries, including the Philippines. Despite this, the MIRA 1 was gender blind and secondary data was not incorporated into the final report.

• Create a repository of key documents for quick access and consumption to inform program design. This should include an analysis of gender roles in livelihoods, power, control and access of assets, and how households make livelihoods decisions.

Ensure risks are continually being measured over time.

• Regularize activities to “take the pulse” of

19

changing contexts and to identify threats and risks of violence to participants on a regular basis.

• Include feedback mechanisms whereby partici-pants can safely provide information on changing risks.

Recognize community mobilization as a strong entry point to assess risks. Most organizations have standardized and documented an approach to CM. CM provides an effective entry point to capturing risks that change over time.

• Train community mobilization field teams to include risk analysis for different cohorts related to liveli-hoods.

• Establish documented approaches to community mobilization that includes risk analysis.

Notes

1 Sue Lautze and Angela Raven-Roberts, “Violence and complex humanitarian emergencies: implications for livelihood models,” Disasters Volume 30, Overseas Development Institute (2006). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/disa.2006.30.issue-4/issuetoc.

2 Interagency Standing Committee (IASC), Central-ity of Protection in Humanitarian Action (2013), http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/downloaddoc.aspx?docID=6641&type=pdf, and Accountability to Af-fected Populations (2011), http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/pageloader.aspx?page=content-subsidi-com-mon-default&sb=89; The Sphere Project, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Re-sponse (2011 edition), http://wrc.ms/spherehandbook.

3 UK Department for International Development, The Sus-tainable Livelihoods Distance Learning Guide, DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets (April 1999). http://wrc.ms/DFID-LLH-learning-guide.

4 Seep Network, Minimum Economic Recovery Stan-dards, Second Edition (November 2010). http://wrc.ms/SEEP-mers.

5 Sue Lautze and Angela Raven-Roberts, “Violence and complex humanitarian emergencies: implications for livelihood models” (see note 1).

6 Susanne Jaspars and Dan Maxwell, “Food security and livelihoods programming in conflict: a review,” Network Papers, Issue 65 (March 2009). http://www.odihpn.org/hpn-resources/network-papers/food-security-and-livelihoods-programming-in-conflict-a-review.

7 ICRC, Professional Standards for protection work car-ried out by humanitarian and human rights actors in armed conflicts and other situations of violence (2013). http://humanitarianlibrary.org/resource/professional-standards-protection-work-carried-out-humanitarian-and-human-rights-actors.

8 IASC, Guidelines for Integrating Gender-based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action: Reducing Risk, Promoting Resilience, and Aiding Recover (in prog-ress).

9 Patricia Justino, Women Working for Recovery: The Impact of Female Employment on Family and Commu-nity Welfare after Conflict, UN Women (October 2012). http://wrc.ms/UNWomenJustino.

10 Sonke Gender Justice; Promundo, Gender Relations, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence and the Effects of Conflict on Women and Men in North Kivu, Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Results from the In-ternational Men and Gender Equality Survey, IMAGES (2014). http://www.promundo.org.br/en/wp-content/

An ACF and Reseau de Femmes team prepares and trains for the focus group discussions. An equal number of men and women were engaged to lead the focus group discussions.

Those at risk usually have the clearest understanding of the risks they face as well as the most effective means of miti-gating these risks, by preventing violations from occurring or reducing their impact.51

20

uploads/2013/01/DRC_IMAGES-FINAL1.pdf.11 Focus group discussion (FGD) March 26, Survey 6,

Mitumbala.12 FGD March 25, Survey 5, Kabati.13 FGD March 25, Survey 3, Kazinga.14 FGD March 25, Survey 4, Chona.15 World Food Program, “Food Aid and Livelihoods

in Emergencies: Strategies for WFP,” Policy Issues Agenda Item 5 (May 2003).

16 Patricia Justino (see note 9).17 Susanne Jaspars and Dan Maxwell (see note 6).18 The Sphere Project, Humanitarian Charter and Mini-

mum Standards in Humanitarian Response (2011 edi-tion). http://wrc.ms/spherehandbook.

19 Hugo Slim and Andrew Bonwick, Protection: An ALNAP guide for humanitarian agencies, ALNAP (August 2005). http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/aors/protection_mainstreaming/AL-NAP_Guide_2005_EN.pdf.

20 Women’s Refugee Commission, Dawn in the City: Guidance for Achieving Self-Reliance for Urban Refu-gees (2011). http://wrc.ms/Dawninthecity.

21 Susanne Jaspars and Dan Maxwell (see note 6).22 World Food Program, “Food Aid and Livelihoods in

Emergencies: Strategies for WFP” (see note 15).23 DFID, The Sustainable Livelihoods Distance Learning

Guide, DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets (April 1999). http://wrc.ms/DFID-LLH-learning-guide.

24 Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit, Gen-der in Emergency Food Security, Livelihoods and Nutrition in Somalia (2012). http://eldis.org/go/home&id=63268&type=Document#.U_ZqiPldV8E.

25 FAO and Dimitra, Gender-Based Violence and Liveli-hood Interventions: Focus on populations of humanitar-ian concern in the context of HIV and AIDS (2010). http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/dimitra/pdf/guid-ance_note_gbv_livelihoods.pdf.

26 Sue Lautze and Angela Raven-Roberts (see note 1).27 Women’s Refugee Commission, Peril or Protection:

The Link Between Livelihoods and Gender-based Violence in Displacement Settings (2009). http://wrc.ms/peril_report.

28 InfoResources Focus, Disaster Risk Reduction: A Gender and Livelihood Perspective, No.2/09 (August 2009). http://www.preventionweb.net/english/profes-sional/publications/v.php?id=11436.

29 Sonke Gender Justice; Promundo (see note 10).30 FAO and Project Dimitra Project (see note 25).31 Women’s Refugee Commission, Peril or Protection:

The Link between Livelihoods and Gender-based Vio-lence (see note 27).

32 Women’s Refugee Commission, Preventing Gender-

based Violence, Building Livelihoods (2012). http://wrc.ms/prevent_gbv_LLH.

33 Global Humanitarian Assistance, Report 2013, Devel-opment Initiatives (2013). http://wrc.ms/GHA2013.

34 Global Humanitarian Assistance, Tracking spending on transfer programming in a humanitarian context. Devel-opment Initiatives (March 2012). http://www.globalhu-manitarianassistance.org/report/tracking-spending-on-cash-transfer-programming-in-a-humanitarian-context.

35 Interview (KI5-13, KI18-16).36 Interview (KI5-13, KI18-16).37 Mike Albu, The Emergency Market Mapping and Analy-

sis Toolkit, Oxfam GB (2010). http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/emergency-market-mapping-and-analysis-toolkit-115385.

38 Humanitarian Policy Group, Markets in crises and tran-sitions: London roundtable (2014). http://www.odi.org/events/3932-markets-crises-transition-london-expert-roundtable.

39 Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, Program on Forced Migration and Health, Participative Ranking Methodology: A Brief Guide: Version 1.1 (Feb-ruary 2010). http://www.alnap.org/resource/8070.

40 Oxfam, Working with Markets and Cash: Standard Operating Procedures and Guidance Notes (2013). http://wrc.ms/Oxfam_cash.

41 IASC, Guidelines for Integrating Gender-based Vio-lence Interventions in Humanitarian Action: Reducing Risk, Promoting Resilience, and Aiding Recovery (in progress).

42 Joint Agency Briefing Note, Rebuilding Better for Coconut Farmers Post-Haiyan Reconstruction in the Philippines (February 12, 2014). http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bn-coconut-livelihoods-philip-pines-recovery-120214-en.pdf.

43 Marcy Hersh, Philippines: New Approach to Emer-gency Response Fails Women and Girls, Refugees International (March 20, 2014). http://www.refintl.org/policy/field-report/philippines-new-approach-emergency-response-fails-women-and-girls.

44 http://www.philstar.com/business-usu-al/2014/01/20/1280682/smes-seen-major-economic-growth-driver; accessed July 14, 2014.

45 Marcy Hersh (see note 43).46 Meeting notes 3-11. 47 Atul Gawande, “The Checklist,” The New Yorker (De-

cember 10, 2007). http://www.newyorker.com/maga-zine/2007/12/10/the-checklist.

48 Dyan Mazurana et al, Sex and Age Matter: Improving Humanitarian Response in Emergencies, Feinstein In-ternational Center, Tufts University (August 2011).ttp://wrc.ms/1nggqxd.

21

49 Ibid.50 Interview 4-4.51 ICRC, Professional Standards for protection work

carried out by humanitarian and human rights actors in armed conflicts and other situations of violence (2013). http://humanitarianlibrary.org/resource/professional-standards-protection-work-carried-out-humanitarian-and-human-rights-actors.

22

Recurrent Themes Raised by Interviewees

Definition of Themes Number of Coded Interviewees

Raising Theme

Examples of Themes

Hiring Hiring as a barrier to incorporating GBV risks in programming

20-1412-1310-139-1313-19

“Finding female staff in places is very difficult.”

Personalities rather than evidence driving content

Representation in clusters and strategic meetings drives content; Participants driving decisions and actions

4-43-818-716-313-8

“The Strategic Response Plans are driven by the personalities that happen to be in the room when planning.”

Training Cross training, or local capacity training

10-139-18-312-139-1310-23

“Do we cross train people on GBV or have GBV on many sectoral teams?”

Methods/Tools Tools or approaches used to design or implement livelihood programs

10-13 2-11 20-1413-19

There are many different tools that were mentioned, from the Household Economic Analysis to EMMA, Oxfam’s 48-hour tool.

Assessments Assessments as critical entry point to look at risks

2-1310-213-813-19

“We should have standard questions for GBV related risks in assessments.”

Understanding context Understanding context either essential or lack creates challenges

3-1920-1411-2513-1912-132--11

“Hard to do guidelines as questions must be context specific rather than prescriptive.”

Time Lack of time as a reason why including gendered risk analysis is not feasible or difficult

2-1116-139-1313-19

“Gender mainstreaming in some cases and areas are just not possible in the time frame given.”

Leadership demand Leadership to create demand for gendered analysis

2-1310-13 4-43-813-813-19

“It took the Humanitarian Coor-dinator to force the use of sex and age disaggregated data.”

Annex A: Codebook of Key Themes and Frequencies from Interviews

23

Institutionalizing gender analysis

Institutionalization of gender considerations into organizational structure and standard practice

10-1312-1316-1310-13 2-1110-23

“GBV and gender needs to be mainstreamed throughout organizational structure.”

Specializing gender out of the responsibility of others

Siloing the responsibility of gender analysis to “experts”

16-1311-2513-19

“When it’s about gender, it becomes someone else’s problem, not my job.”

Gender mainstreaming and GBV concerns in emergencies seen as extraneous expenditures

Resource constraints, spending money on consultants and experts rather than goods on ground

3-1112-1311-259-13

“Technical experts were costly, and could have been better spent on the ground.”

Monitoring risks Gauging risks not seen from changing context during program implemen-tation. Feedback mecha-nism.

10-239-1319-1918-73-6

“Important to have to measure changes in context over time.”

24

Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS)

Action Against Hunger (ACF)

Catholic Relief Services

Danish Refugee Council (DRC)

Feinstein Center, Tufts University

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Gen Cap

GBV AOR

Global Communities

International Labor Organization

International Rescue Committee

InterAction

Mercy Corps

Norwegian Refugee Council

Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)

Oxfam, GB

Project Concern International (PCI)

Relief International

Save the Children

Solidarité International

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

Women for Women International

World Food Program

Annex B: Interviewee Affiliations

25

On 18 November 2013, the WRC deployed with Global Communities to the Philippines to conduct a rapid assessment of the humanitarian and early recovery needs, taking into account gender-based violence (GBV) and protection considerations to identify and analyze the livelihoods issues in the affected area. Given the typhoon’s track and preliminary damage reports, the assessment focused on collecting data in the most adversely affected areas in the Central and Eastern Visayas regions, specifically municipalities located within 50 km of the eye of the storm.

In Central Visayas, the assessment covered the northernmost reaches of Cebu province, including San Remigio, Medellín, Daan-bantayan, Santa Fe, Madrideos and Bantayan municipalities. In Eastern Visayas, the team focused on the main provincial town centers, including Guiuan (Eastern Samar province), Ormac town (Leyte province), Basey (Samar province) and surrounding municipalities.

The team used a mixed-method approach to data collection, including direct observation, and key informant interviews with 19 women and 23 men, including representatives of the affected population, business owners, local government, community leaders and a variety of additional stakeholders. Given the rapid nature of the assessment, data collection was completed in 10 days, after which the team proceeded to analyze the results and prepare the following report detailing the key findings in the shelter and livelihoods sectors and recommen-dations for early recovery programming in the affected area. Additional focus groups of 31 men and women were conducted two months after the initial visit.

The following types of individuals were interviewed:

• Hardware store owner

• Market stall owners

• Fishmongers

• Community mobilizers of a micro-finance institution

• Local community-based organizations

• Local private sector organization

• Master seamstresses and sewing experts

• Mayor of affected municipality and team

• Local business owners

• Two focus group discussions of men and women in high damage areas

Annex C: Methodology, Philippines

26

The WRC conducted a desk review of food security and livelihood programs in Eastern DRC, specifically in North and South Kivu. The WRC supplemented the review with a gender-based analysis of national data. In addi-tion, several meetings with international organizations were held in Bukavu prior to the focus group discussions (FGDs). The purpose of these meetings was to better understand the types of livelihood activities that actors were currently implementing.

For the assessments, the research team recruited six Action Against Hunger (ACF) food security and livelihoods (FSL) field staff (two supervisors and four facilitators) to participate in the gender/GBV self-assessment and to facilitate FGDs. The self-assessment consisted of guided discussions and exercises whose aim was to determine a baseline of ACF staff’s understanding about gender and GBV, and how these might intersect with their livelihoods activities.

Because of the lack of female staff members in the FSL team (the only female staff was out on leave), the WRC and ACF contracted one supervisor and four female facilitators from a local women’s organization, Réseau de Femmes (RdF). This organization was an existing ACF partner in Bukavu with activities in Minova.

1.1 Focus Group Discussion Method

The focus group methodology was based on the Participatory Ranking Methodology (PRM). PRM is a dynamic approach to focus group discussions. Rather than a series of questions, PRM asks the discussants only one or two questions. The questions generate responses that are ranked from most important to least important. Qualitative data is collected through comments and responses. The methodology allowed the research team to count the frequency of key themes that emerged from discussants’ responses, as well as discussants’ ranking of each theme. The two ACF/RdF FGD questions were as follows:

1. What are the critical resources needed to increase wealth? Please rank these resources from the most critical to the least critical.

2. What are the risks related to these resources?

The ACF/RdF team informed the approach through the following:

• Selection criteria for geographic locations:

o The villages needed to be within the health zones, and an area where ACF’s health zones had worked or currently have programs.

o The geographic areas needed to be diverse in order to capture the different types of livelihoods practiced (farmers, fisher-folk, pastoralists).

o The geographic areas needed to capture the different ethnicities.

o The areas needed to be reasonably accessible by the teams.

o Areas visited needed to be relatively secure.

Annex D: Methodology, Democratic Republic of the Congo*

* Alastair Ager, Lindsay Stark and Alina Potts, Participatory Ranking Methodology: A Brief Guide, Program on Forced Migration & Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University (February 2010). http://mhpss.net/?get=26/1312356528-PRMmanual_v1.1.pdf.

27

• Focus group composition:

o The ACF/RdF team did not convene focus groups by age, ethnicity or livelihood practice. Given the high level of conflict within communities, any sense of exclusion, special treatment or access would exacer-bate tensions.

o Individuals were randomly selected.

o The team avoided relying on village leaders to select participants.

The research team facilitated 25 FGDs, with a total of 403 participants. The participants comprised 214 women and 189 men. The ages ranged from 25 to 60.

The FGDs areas of Hauts Plateaux and the Coastal Areas fit the criteria mentioned above. Table 1 below—based on a previous assessment conducted by ACF—gives the general livelihoods and ethnicities in the areas targeted.

Table 1: General Livelihoods and Ethnicities

Zone Livelihood activity Ethnic groups Language Hauts Plateaux Livestock, agriculture Tutsi, Hutu Kinyarwanda Coastal Areas Agriculture, fishing, livestock Hunde Kihunde

Focus group members in DRC participate in a participatory ranking exercise.

28

The EMMA is a 10-step process to map a market post crisis.* The steps are copied below with comments on how risk analysis can be included in each step.

Annex E: Expanding EMMA to Include Risk Analysis

* Mike Albu. The Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis Toolkit, Oxfam GB, 2010. http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/emergency-market-mapping-and-analysis-toolkit-115385.

29

Oxfam GB’s standard operating procedures for cash programming and markets is a robust tool that already includes risk assessments that run alongside a needs and market assessment and analysis. The risk assess-ments, however, can include additional questions that focus on risks of shifting assets into liabilities, and specifi-cally GBV risks to different cohorts.

Existing questions in Oxfam’s Annex 1: Cash Emergency Preparedness (CEP) Risk Assessment in Oxfam’s Standard Operating Procedures and Guidance Notes include the following questions:

• Do any of the program processes expose beneficiaries (especially socially excluded groups) to risk of theft/looting/coercion? Please explain the risk clearly.

• Does our program design increase women’s exposure to violence in the household? If so, how?

• Does the design of the program expose Oxfam/partner staff to risk of threat to life, theft or coercion?

• Does the design of the program increase chances of women’s sexual exploitation by Oxfam/partner staff or third party?

Additional questions to supplement the annex can include the following:

• Do any of the program processes expose beneficiaries (especially socially excluded groups) to risk of GBV? Things to consider are as follows:

o Travelling to and from sites (work sites or in cash distribution sites)

o Childcare during workday

o Control over cash after receipt

o Tensions within community/host community

Annex F: Expanding Oxfam’s “Working with Markets and Cash: Standard Operating Procedures and Guidance Notes”

30

CLARA is a set of four steps to capture GBV risks associated with livelihoods as well as potential risks arising from programs in response to crises. Currently in draft form, the CLARA may be used alongside livelihood assessment tools already in use, though can be also used as a stand-alone tool.

STEPS TO TAKE IMMEDIATELY AFTER A CRISIS: Rapid Response

STEP ONE: Preparation

In preparing a response approach, a secondary data review should be conducted, including a conflict/situational analysis, to develop an understanding of the overall context of the crisis. Review of assessments, studies, qualita-tive and quantitative information should focus on the drivers of GBV, in complement to the broader secondary data review. Particular focus should be on:

• Who controls assets? How are livelihood decisions made? What are the roles of women, girls, boys and men in earning incomes for the household?

• What are the predominant livelihood strategies?

• What are existing vulnerabilities to watch for?

• What are the sources of violence and threats to the affected population?

• What are some strengths and assets that individuals possess that can manage risks and threats?

• What data exists that specifically addresses GBV in the context? Are there potential overlaps of GBV and the livelihoods predominantly practiced by different individuals?

• What has changed due to the emergency? What are most people doing to cope with the emergency? What are the major types of negative livelihood strategies that are likely to be seen in the crisis?

STEP TWO: Primary Data Collection

As per the IASC’s Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action: Reducing Risks, Promoting Resilience, and Aiding Recovery (in progress), assessments should be conducted by consulting different cohorts, including but not limited to women, girls, men, boys, elderly, persons with disabili-ties and different ethnic groups.

In identifying different cohorts, critical questions to keep in mind are (1) Who are the different types of people that are affected? (2) Who are the most vulnerable and why? (3) What are the most likely risks related to the prevalent livelihoods? See full set of CLARA questions at the end of this document.

STEP THREE: Data Analysis and Program Design

Primary and secondary data needs to be compiled and analyzed to develop the fullest picture possible of the livelihood strategies and associated risks prevalent by age cohort. The analysis needs to inform programming choices, that is, which type of livelihood program to implement, as well as program design – how can that program be designed and implemented to make it as safe as possible for all participants according to their

Annex G: CLARA Cohort Livelihoods and Risk Analysis

31

unique risks. In analyzing the data collected, practitioners seek to design responsive programming. By collecting the risks for different individuals related to livelihoods programming, programmers have a better understanding of the:

• Impact of conflict or crisis on household assets

• Risks identified for each cohort, at a minimum by sex and age

• Risks associated with various livelihood activities

• Community capacity to mitigate risks

• Economic coping strategies

• Proposed community/household economic strategies and solutions

STEPS TO TAKE MONTHS AFTER THE CRISIS: Response and Recovery

STEP FOUR: Monitoring and Program Implementation

Regular review of the changing context should be operationalized in program activities. Surveys and focus group discussions should take place in conjunction with monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and community mobilization. Ways in which the CLARA can be included in the implementation of the program include:

Community Mobilization

• Establish livelihood committees with communities that assess the progress of the program objectives, as well as gauge changing threats of violence and levels of related risks. Committees should include women or have separate committees for women.

• Establish a feedback mechanism where women, girls, boys and men can anonymously and safely share information on program results and processes.

• Focus group discussions or key informant discussions including questions from the CLARA should be a required and regularized activity.

Monitoring and Evaluation

• Include in monthly or other regular reports, status of risks based on discussions with committees or key informant discussions.

• Include regular surveys that include the CLARA questions to capture key attitudes and perceptions about risks.

• Include indicators that show that risks are being identified, and measures taken to manage identified risks.

32

STEP TWO: CLARA Questions

1. What activities did you do to earn a living before the crisis?Discussions with women:

Discussions with men:

Discussions with adolescent girls living with families: (What activities did you do to support the family in earning income?)

Discussions with adolescent girls living alone or as heads of household: (What activities did you do to earn income?)

- Examples can include childcare, helping other members in income generating activities, helping in the fields, collecting water, etc.

Discussions with adolescent boys living with families: (What activities did you do to support the family in earning income?)

Discussions with adolescent boys living alone or as heads of household: (What activities did you do to earn income?)

- Examples can include childcare, helping other members in income generating activities, helping in the fields, collecting water, etc.

Discussions with elderly/disabled/other:

2. Did you feel that these activities were safe for you and other members of your household? If not, what were the major threats?Discussions with women:

Discussions with men:

Discussions with adolescent girls living with families:

Discussions with adolescent girls living as alone or as heads of household:

33

STEP TWO: CLARA Questions (continued)

Discussions with adolescent boys living with families:

Discussions with adolescent boys living as alone or as heads of household:

Discussions with elderly/disabled/other:

3. How has the conflict or crisis impacted your livelihood?Discussions with women:

Discussions with men:

Discussions with adolescent girls living with families:

Discussions with adolescent girls living as alone or as heads of household:

Discussions with adolescent boys living with families:

Discussions with adolescent boys living as alone or as heads of household:

Discussions with elderly/disabled/other:

4. What activities are you doing now to meet your basic needs and earn a living?Discussions with women:

34

STEP TWO: CLARA Questions (continued)

Discussions with men:

Discussions with adolescent girls living with families: (What activities did you do to support the family in earning income?)

Discussions with adolescent girls living alone or as heads of household: (What activities did you do to earn income?)

- Examples can include childcare, helping other members in income generating activities, helping in the fields, collecting water, etc.

Discussions with adolescent boys living with families: (What activities did you do to support the family in earning income?)

Discussions with adolescent boys living alone or as heads of household: (What activities did you do to earn income?)

- Examples can include childcare, helping other members in income generating activities, helping in the fields, collecting water, etc.

Discussions with elderly/disabled/other:

5. Do you feel that these activities are safe for you and other members of your household? If not, what are the major threats? Discussions with women:

Discussions with men:

Discussions with adolescent girls living with families: (Recall activities conducted in support of household income generation)

Discussions with adolescent girls living alone or as heads of household: (Recall activities conducted in support of income generation)

35

STEP TWO: CLARA Questions (continued)

Discussions with adolescent boys living with families: (Recall activities conducted in support of household income generation)

Discussions with adolescent boys living alone or as heads of household: (Recall activities conducted in support of income generation)

Discussions with elderly/disabled/other:

6. What are some ways that you are trying to manage these threats?Discussions with women:

Discussions with men:

Discussions with adolescent girls living with families: (Recall activities conducted in support of household income generation)

Discussions with adolescent girls living alone or as heads of household: (Recall activities conducted in support of income generation)

Discussions with adolescent boys living with families: (Recall activities conducted in support of household income generation)

Discussions with adolescent boys living alone or as heads of household: (Recall activities conducted in support of income generation)

Discussions with elderly/disabled/other:

36

STEP TWO: CLARA Questions (continued)

7. If your livelihoods activities are currently restricted, how would you get back to generating income? What is missing currently to allow for this to happen?Discussions with women:

Discussions with men:

Discussions with adolescent girls living with families: (What activities did you do to support the family in earning income?)

Discussions with adolescent girls living alone or as heads of household: (What activities did you do to earn income?)

- Examples can include childcare, helping other members in income generating activities, helping in the fields, collecting water, etc.

Discussions with adolescent boys living with families: (What activities did you do to support the family in earning income?)

Discussions with adolescent boys living alone or as heads of household: (What activities did you do to earn income?)

- Examples can include childcare, helping other members in income generating activities, helping in the fields, collecting water, etc.

Discussions with elderly/disabled/other:

8. Do you feel that these activities would be safe for you and other members of your household? If not, what would be the major threats?Discussions with women:

Discussions with men:

37

STEP TWO: CLARA Questions (continued)

Discussions with adolescent girls living with families: (Recall activities conducted in support of household income generation)

Discussions with adolescent girls living alone or as heads of household: (Recall activities conducted in support of income generation)

Discussions with adolescent boys living with families: (Recall activities conducted in support of household income generation)

Discussions with adolescent boys living alone or as heads of household: (Recall activities conducted in support of income generation)

Discussions with elderly/disabled/other:

Examples of potential risks related to livelihoods, not exhaustive• Exposing participants to theft, violence when travelling to and from work (location of work, time of work)• Creating additional vulnerabilities for women or others, such as younger children and the elderly, due

to changed roles and responsibilities during workday (childcare, cooking, pulling children out of school to assist in activities)

• Increasing exposure to exploitation by employers, clients, suppliers• Inciting backlash from family or community members when women start earning money• Increasing vulnerabilities of theft and violence due to greater assets and wealth• Reinforcing inequalities by continuing to limit choices to more vulnerable groups• Causing false expectations and dependence on short-term surge of cash or assets• Increasing costs and drawing on resources, such as providing livestock without fodder or veterinary care• Exacerbating tensions between host community and affected community• Continuing physical and environmental threats from unstable infrastructure, flooding, earthquake

aftershocks

How can these risks be managed?

38

IMM

ED

IATE

LY A

FTE

R C

RIS

IS

Imm

edia

te R

espo

nse

Sec

onda

ry d

ata

revi

ew

•In

pre

parin

g a

resp

onse

app

roac

h, s

econ

dary

dat

a re

view

inc

lude

s a

confl

ict

or s

ituat

iona

l an

alys

is,

and

othe

r av

aila

ble

data

col

lect

ed t

o de

velo

p an

und

er-

stan

ding

of

the

over

all

cont

ext

of t

he c

risis

. S

peci

fic

seco

ndar

y da

ta r

evie

w (

asse

ssm

ents

, stu

dies

, qua

lita-

tive

and

quan

titat

ive

info

rmat

ion)

sho

uld

focu

s on

the

dr

iver

s of

GB

V, to

com

plem

ent t

he b

road

er re

view

.

Prim

ary

data

col

lect

ion:

CLA

RA

•In

ide

ntify

ing

diffe

rent

coh

orts

, cr

itica

l qu

estio

ns t

o ke

ep i

n m

ind

are

(1)

Who

are

the

diff

eren

t ty

pes

of

peop

le th

at a

re a

ffect

ed?

(2)

Who

are

the

mos

t vul

ner-

able

and

why

? (3

) Wha

t are

the

mos

t lik

ely

risks

rela

ted

to th

eir l

ivel

ihoo

ds?

Ana

lysi

s of

dat

a an

d pr

ogra

m a

rtic

ulat

ion

•Id

entif

y th

ose

that

are

at

mos

t ris

k of

GB

V, r

elat

ed t

o liv

elih

ood

stra

tegi

es

•Th

reat

s to

prim

ary

inco

me

earn

ers,

and

to

thos

e w

ho

indi

rect

ly s

uppo

rt li

velih

oods

•W

ays

in w

hich

cris

is a

ffect

ed in

divi

dual

s ar

e co

ping

•A

sset

s an

d ca

paci

ties

of th

e af

fect

ed in

divi

dual

s

Use

the

dat

a to

ass

ess

whi

ch p

rogr

am h

as t

he le

ast

pote

ntia

l to

incr

ease

risk

s of

GB

V to

par

ticip

ants

.

WE

EK

S A

FTE

R

Res

pons

e an

d R

ecov

ery

Com

mun

ity e

ngag

emen

t

•E

stab

lish

livel

ihoo

d co

mm

ittee

s w

ith c

omm

uniti

es t

hat

asse

ss t

he p

rogr

ess

of t

he p

rogr

am o

bjec

tives

, as

wel

l as

gau

ge c

hang

ing

thre

ats

of v

iole

nce

and

leve

ls o

f ris

ks r

elat

ed.

Com

mitt

ees

shou

ld b

e co

ntex

t sp

ecifi

c;

how

ever

, in

clud

e w

omen

or

have

sep

arat

e co

mm

ittee

s fo

r wom

en.

•E

stab

lish

a fe

edba

ck m

echa

nism

whe

re w

omen

, gi

rls,

boys

and

men

can

ano

nym

ousl

y an

d sa

fely

sha

re in

for-

mat

ion

on p

rogr

am re

sults

and

pro

cess

es.

•Fo

cus

grou

p di

scus

sion

s or

key

info

rman

t di

scus

sion

s,

incl

udin

g qu

estio

ns

from

th

e C

LAR

A,

shou

ld

be

a re

quire

d an

d re

gula

rized

act

ivity

.

Mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

•In

clud

e in

mon

thly

or

othe

r re

gula

r re

port

s, s

tatu

s of

ris

ks b

ased

on

quic

k di

scus

sion

s w

ith c

omm

ittee

s or

ke

y in

form

ant d

iscu

ssio

ns

o U

nder

take

reg

ular

sur

veys

tha

t in

clud

e th

e C

LAR

A

ques

tions

to

capt

ure

key

attit

udes

and

per

cept

ions

ab

out r

isks

.

o In

clud

e in

dica

tors

tha

t sh

ow t

hat

risks

are

bei

ng

iden

tified

, and

mea

sure

s ta

ken

to m

anag

e id

entifi

ed

risks

.

CLA

RA

: Coh

ort L

ivel

ihoo

ds a

nd R

isk

Ana

lysi

s

39

Ager, Alastair, Stark, Lindsay and Potts, Alina. Participatory Ranking Methodology: A Brief Guide. Program on Forced Migration & Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. February 2010.

Albu, Mike. The Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis Toolkit. Oxfam GB. 2010.

Austin, Louis and Chessex, Sebastien. Minimum Requirements for Market Analysis in Emergencies. The Cash Learning Partnership (CALP). November 2013.

Barbelet, Veronique et al. Markets in crises and transitions: London expert roundtable. Humanitarian Policy Group. 2014.

Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, Program on Forced Migration and Health. Participative Ranking Methodology: A Brief Guide: Version 1.1. February 2010.

FAO and ILO. The Livelihoods Assessment Tool-kit. April 2009.

FAO and Project Dimitra Project. Gender-Based Violence and Livelihood Interventions: Focus on populations of humanitarian concern in the context of HIV. 2010.

Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit. Gender: In Emergency Food Security, Livelihoods and Nutrition in Somalia. 2012.

Gawande, Atul. “The Checklist,” The New Yorker. December 10, 2007.

Global Humanitarian Assistance. Report 2013. Development Initiatives. 2013.

———Tracking spending on transfer programming in a humanitarian context. Development Initiatives. March 2012.

Harvey, Paul and Bailey, Sarah. “Cash Transfer programming in Emergencies.” Humanitarian Practice Network, Number 11. June 2011.

Hersh, Marcy. Philippines: New Approach to Emergency Response Fails Women and Girls.” Refugees Interna-tional. March 20, 2014.

Humanitarian Policy Group. Markets in crises and transitions: London roundtable. 2014.

ICRC. Professional Standards for protection work carried out by humanitarian and human rights actors in armed conflicts and other situations of violence. 2013.

InfoResources Focus. Disaster Risk Reduction: A Gender and Livelihood Perspective, No.2/09. August 2009.

Interagency Standing Committee (IASC). Accountability to Affected Populations. 2011.

———Gender Marker Analysis of Results and Lessons Learned. 2012.

——— Centrality of Protection in Humanitarian Action. 2013.

Bibliography

40

———Guidelines for Integrating Gender-based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action: Reducing Risk, Promoting Resilience, and Aiding Recover. In progress.

Jaspars, Susanne and Maxwell, Dan. “Food security and livelihoods programming in conflict: a review.” Network Papers, Issue 65. March 2009.

Jaspers, Susanne and O’Callaghan, Sorcha. “Challenging choices: protection and livelihoods in conflict.” Humanitarian Policy Group, no. 31. May 2010.

———“Livelihoods and protection in situations of protracted conflict.” Disasters, No. 34. 2010.

Joint Agency Briefing Note. Rebuilding Better for Coconut Farmers Post-Haiyan reconstruction in the Philip-pines. February 12, 2014.

Juillard, Helene et al. Working with Markets and Cash: Standard Operating Procedures and Guidance Notes. Humanitarian Department Oxfam GB. October 2013.

Justino, Patricia. Women Working for Recovery: The Impact of Female Employment on Family and Community Welfare after Conflict. UN Women. October 2012.

Lautze, Sue and Raven-Roberts, Angela. “Violence and complex humanitarian emergencies: implications for liveli-hood models.” Disasters Volume 30. Overseas Development Institute. 2006.

Longley, Catherine and Maxwell, Daniel. Livelihoods, Chronic Conflict and Humanitarian Response: A Synthesis of Current Practice, Working Paper 182. Overseas Development Institute. June 2003.

Mazurana, Dyan et al. Sex & Age Matter: Improving Humanitarian Response in Emergencies. Feinstein Interna-tional Center, Tufts University. August 2011.

Oxfam. 48-Hour Assessment Tool—Objective and Guidance Notes. 2012.

Oxfam and Fair Trade Alliance. Rebuilding Better for Coconut Farmers: Post Haiyan reconstruction in the Philip-pines. Joint Agency Briefing Note. February 12, 2014.

Seep Network. Minimum Economic Recovery Standards. Second Edition. November 2010.

Slim, Hugo and Bonwick, Andrew. Protection: An ALNAP guide for humanitarian agencies. ALNAP. August 2005.

Sonke Gender Justice; Promundo. Gender Relations, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence and the Effects of Conflict on Women and Men in North Kivu, Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Results from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES). 2014.

The Sphere Project. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. 2011 edition.

UK Department for International Development (DFID). The Sustainable Livelihoods Distance Learning Guide. DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. April 1999.

UNHCR. Livelihoods programming in UNHCR: Operational Guidelines. 2010.

41

Women’s Refugee Commission. Building Livelihoods: A Field Manual for Practitioners in Humanitarian Settings. 2009.

———Cash and Child Protection: How CTP Can Protect Children from Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Violence. 2012.

———Dawn in the City: Guidance for Achieving Self-Reliance for Urban Refugees. October 2011.

———Peril or Protection: The Link Between Livelihoods and Gender-based Violence in Displacement Settings. 2009.

———Preventing Gender based Violence, Building Livelihoods: Guidance and Tools for Improved Program-ming. December 2011.

World Food Programme. “Food Aid and Livelihoods in Emergencies: Strategies for WFP.” Policy Issues Agenda Item 5. May 2003.

Zicherman, Nona et al. Applying conflict sensitivity in emergency response: Current practices and ways forward. Overseas Development Institute, Humanitarian Practice Network. October 2011.

122 East 42nd StreetNew York, NY 10168-1289

212.551.3115info@wrcommission.org

womensrefugeecommission.org